2-8-10

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

= February 8, 2010

The Chairman Robert Mollo= y called the meeting to order at approximately 7:00 pm.

The Secretary Kevin O’Sullivan called roll:

PRESENT:

ABSENT:

Robert= Molloy, Svetlana Paliy, David Hennessey, Kevin O’Sullivan, Alternate Bill K= earney, Alternate Chris LaFrance, Alternate Lance Ouellette, Planning Director/Zo= ning Administrator Jeff Gowan

Peter = McNamara

Mr. Molloy appointed Mr. = Kearney to vote in the absence of Mr. McNamara.

HEARINGS

Case #2429 – FICHERA, Frank Jr. & CROOKER, Constance – 52 Dutton Road - Map 36 Lot 10-358 – Seeking = an “Area” Variance to Article III, Section 307-12 to permit the subdivision of land to allow two lots without 200 feet of frontage.

Mr. Gowan informed the Bo= ard that a written request had been submitted by the applicant’s attorney, Attorney Paul DeCarolis of Gottesman & Hollis, to date specify the case= to March 8, 2010. The applicant would like to meet w= ith the Selectmen. Mr. Gowan said whatever determination was made with the plan, it would also rely on Board = of Selectmen approval because the right-of-way in question was owned by the To= wn of Pelham.

The case was date specifi= ed to March 8, 2010. <= /p>

Case #2431 – AUGENSTEIN, Howard E. - 956 Bridge Street -= Map 17 Lot 12-180 – Seeking a “Use” Variance to Article IV, Section 307-16 to permit a third living unit for the owner̵= 7;s personal use in the Residential Zone.

The abutter’s list = was read aloud at the previous meeting (January 11, 2010).

Attorney George LaBonte, representing Howard Augenstein, came forward to discuss the variance request. Mr. Howard Augenstei= n sat with Attorney LaBonte. Attorn= ey LaBonte said the applicant was seeking approval from a variance so he could create a third living unit on his property. The living unit would be located i= n the barn attached to the main home. The applicant had sought and received an approved septic plan.

Attorney LaBonte reviewed= the variance criteria as submitted (as follows):

1. The variance will not be contrary = to the public interest because: I am not changing the appearance of the structure. Three family direc= tly across the street (#947 Br= idge Street). My 2 family currently sits on 13.2 acres of land.

2. Special conditions exist such that literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship becaus= e:

“Use”

           &n= bsp;    i. the zoning restriction as applied interferes with a landowner’s reasonable use of the property, considering the unique setting of the prope= rty in it’s environment such that: The property has 13.2 +/- acres which will allow 3 total residences.=

      = ;          ii. no fair and substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of= the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction on the property because: I have more than enough property to su= pport 3 total residences.

      = ;          iii. the variance would not injure the public or private rights of others since:= because I am not infringing on anybody else’s property.

3. The Variance is consis= tent with the spirit of the ordinance because:&= nbsp; It will not decrease value of surrounding properties; it will remain residential.

4. Substantial justice is= done because: It will allow me as owner to reside in property and pay my taxes. <= o:p>

5. The value of the surro= unding properties will not be diminished because: Currently barn is in disrepair. Renovating barn will add value to current property as well as surrounding properties.

Mr. Molloy asked if the b= arn would be restored or razed. M= r. Augenstein said they weren’t changing the actual structure in any way; the same footprint would be there. They would add windows and doors; the space inside would be divided.

Mr. Hennessey said a comm= ent was made that there were other three-family structures in the area. Mr. Augenstein had printed copies = from the assessor’s department. He read that 947 Bridge Stree= t was a 3 family in residential area= and 703 Bridge Street was a 3 family in residential. Mr. Hennessey questioned if the lo= ts had been granted variances or if they had been grandfathered. Mr. Gowan said he couldn’t s= peak to the question without checking the files. Mr. Augenstein said he wasn’t asking for anymore than what was already in the neighborhood. Mr. Hennessey questioned how close= the Business District was to the property.&nbs= p; Mr. Augenstein believed it ended on Balcom Road. Mr. Gowan said the new extended di= strict fell just short of Balcom = Road. Mr. Hennessey asked how far it was= from Mr. Augenstein’s lot. M= r. Augenstein said it was probably a half mile away. He had counted approximately eight businesses from Balcom Roa= d to the Salem, NH town line.

Mr. Hennessey felt Mr. Au= genstein was eloquent as to why the variance would be justice for him. He pointed out that the variance h= ad to be granted on the basis of the uniqueness of the property. He was unclear what made the prope= rty special to be able to grant the variance.&= nbsp; Attorney LaBonte said the property was different, given the fact that Mr. Augenstein had 13 acres, which was more than sufficient to handle the residences on the property. H= e said the owner wanted to keep the property the way it was and not have it subdivided.

Mr. Ouellette stated that= he looked at the property earlier in the day.= He questioned if the barn was currently attached to the house. Mr. Augenstein answered yes. Mr. Ouellette asked if the appeara= nce of the house would change. Mr. Augenstein showed the Board an artist rendition of the proposed home and th= e attached barn. Mr. Molloy asked if the barn’s footprint would be changed.&n= bsp; Mr. Augenstein answered no. <= /span>

There was no public input= .

Mr. Hennessey made a moti= on, if the variance is approved the applicant’s stipulations will be attache= d: 1) the footprint will not change, and 2) the exterior of the building will = be as shown.

MOTION:

(Hennessey/O’Sull= ivan) If variance is approved, the applicant’s stipulations will be attached= : 1) the footprint will not change; and 2) the exterior of the building will b= e as shown on the plan (presented to the Board during the meeting).

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Mr. O’Sullivan aske= d how the parking was arranged and how many cars would fit on the lot. Mr. Augenstein said there was a three-car garage. He said the driveway may be extended so as to fit the vehicles up past the door. He believed ten cars would fit eas= ily in the driveway. Mr. O’Sul= livan asked what the typical vehicle volume was on an average day. Mr. Augenstein said there were thr= ee to four vehicles. Mr. O’Su= llivan asked if the vicinity surrounding the property was high and dry. Mr. Augenstein said the hill was mo= stly ledge (wet at times); the whole area was high and dry.

Mr. Molloy asked if a new= septic had been approved. Mr. Augens= tein stated that he had a redesign septic system approved to add onto the existi= ng system. The present system wa= s a pump up system designed for six bedrooms.&= nbsp;

Mr. Hennessey confirmed t= hat the existing structure was a two-family. Mr. Augenstein answered yes. Mr. Hennessey asked how many bedrooms were on the property. Mr. Augenstein said there was a to= tal three bedrooms. He would add = one bedroom. Mr. Hennessey said in granting the variance he would apply the same criteria as used for a septic system for an in-law apartment. He said it sounded like the proposal would be okay. He stated he would stipulate that = there be no more than a total of four bedrooms on the premises. Mr. Gowan said the in-law criteria= came under Special Exception; this was a use variance. He said because they were differen= t, he didn’t feel the standard 1.5 bedroom larger than typically required w= ould apply. It was noted that the = system was 900 gallons per day. Mr. Hennessey withdrew his motion.

Mr. Hennessey said the application came in on the cusp of the change over for strictly use variances. He said the Board = was reviewing the case under Simplex; and would be hard pressed to reject many types of businesses if it were a business application. He thought a residential use shoul= d be granted the same respect as a business use in the neighborhood. He was thinking of approving the variance because it was a unique area and based on the lot size and locatio= n.

Mr. Augenstein discussed = the area and the fact that he had always kept the property looking nice.

Mr. Ouellette stated that= the characteristic of the property was beautiful and represented Pelham in a go= od way. He would rather see the proposed renovation rather than a store in that location.

Mr. Gowan clarified the v= ote count from the motion stipulating conditions. It was noted that the vote count w= as five to zero. Mr. Gowan asked= for clarification that the variance only contemplated the residential use even though it was located in a commercial zone. In Mr. Hennessey’s opinion t= he variance in front of the Board was for the specific use of residential and restricted to such. He said t= hey weren’t changing the underlying zoning; they were granting a variance= to increase the structure to three units.&nbs= p; No other use changes were being granted. There was no objection by other Bo= ard members to Mr. Hennessey’s opinion of the requested variance.

Attorney LaBonte wanted clarification of the motion made earlier as to the exterior of the structure. Mr. Hennessey said= the motion was that the exterior of the building would be as shown on the plan = (at the meeting).

BALLOT VOTE:

Mr. Molloy – Yes = to all criteria

Ms. Paliy – Yes t= o all criteria

Mr. O’Sullivan &#= 8211; Yes to all criteria

Mr. Hennessey – Y= es to all criteria

Mr. Kearney – Yes= to all criteria

VOTE:

(5= -0-0) The motion carried.

THE ‘USE’ VARIANCE WAS GRANTED

Case #2432 - VERHO= FSTAD, Joost – 1 Wood Road - Map 11-333 – Seeking an “Area” Variance to Article II, Sections 307-7, 307-8, 307-12, T= able 1, 307-13 & 307-14 to permit the expansion of a pre-existing non-confor= ming use whereby the existing home shall be razed and a new two-bedroom dwelling with an attached 23ft.x24ft. garage to be constructed in its place on a lot having approximately 15,900 square feet and 88ft. of frontage on Wood Road

Mr. Molloy stated that th= e Board conducted a site walk on the property.&nbs= p; Mr. Kearney read the minutes from the site walk aloud. He then read aloud noted from Heal= th Inspector Paul Zarnowski in reference to the parcel which provided historic= al information. It was Mr. Zarnowski’s opinion that there was no spring located under the present dwelling, but rather it was trapped water. In his estimation, the proposed se= ptic would be like placing a mini sewage treatment facility on the site and woul= d be the best solution to an on-going problem and the best way to protect the wa= ter quality of the pond in the area. The existing septic tank was sitting in the water table and if not removed, it would have further negative impacts to the pond.

Mr. Hennessey didn’= t recall a discussion at the site walk regarding a spring under the dwelling. He thought it was clear that there= was an acknowledged spring on the site. Mr. Gowan said Mr. Zarnowski wasn’t award of a spring (like mo= st would think of a spring), but that all of the properties around the area (on the sandy soil) had high ground water underneath them. He said Mr. Zarnowski had investig= ated the area some twenty times over the past twenty years and that he wasn̵= 7;t aware of a spring (gurgling up).

Attorney Paul DeCarolis of Gottesman & Hollis, representing the applicant, provided the Board with documentation. He began by st= ating that the neighbors (at the last meeting and at the site walk) had been concerned regarding the height of the structure.&nbs= p; He stated that the applicant had amended the plans and more or less eliminated the basement; the building will now be a slab construction with a total overall height of approximately 25’8” (versus the previou= sly proposed 35’). The total width would be basically the same footprint as the original.

Attorney DeCarolis told t= he Board that Ms. Jean McAndrew could not be present for the meeting, but had submit= ted a letter (dated = January 31, 2010) in support of the project.

Attorney DeCarolis said M= r. Hennessey raised a question regarding some of the costs involved with the proposal. He said the site ne= eded a lot of engineering and work a= nd septic system (pump up); there are two estimates from contractors for the estimated site work one being $65,000 and the other being $72,000. He said the applicant purchased the property for approximately $115,000; Mr. Maynard indicated his fees to date were approximately $12,000. T= he cost to develop the site would be approximately $198,000 before there was a= ny construction at the home. Und= er the (variance) standards applied for, the Board could consider the costs. Attorney DeCarolis felt the propos= ed home was a relatively modest building given the costs to date and asked for= the Board’s consideration. = He said there would be a modest home with a two-car garage; they are eliminati= ng the existing shed. He felt it was= in the best interest of the neighbors to have a garage for storage and a neat appearance.

Attorney DeCarolis unders= tood that the Conservation Commission had sent a letter to the Planning Departme= nt issued a favorable review in support of the application. Mr. Gowan said the letter should b= e in the file.

Mr. Molloy asked if the g= arage height would be changed.

Mr. Joseph Maynard of Ben= chmark Engineering (project engineer) stated that the entire ridge height would dr= op to just under twenty six feet. He stated that they reconfigured the septic system and explained that they gra= ded it off to the minimum allowable, which allowed them to drop the garage slab th= ree feet. The septic system will = now be a pump system rather than a gravity system. It will still be a Clean Solution = tank and equipment; the disposal portion will be a pump system.

Mr. Hennessey asked what percentage of the lot would be covered by the structures. Mr. Maynard said it was 12.5%, whi= ch included the (1ft) roof overhang.

Attorney DeCarolis read a= loud the letter (dated Ja= nuary 31, 2010) submitted by Ms. Jean McAndrew (<= st1:address w:st=3D"on">3 Wood Road / 89 Webster Ave.). She was pleased with the presented= plans and felt that the owner was trying his best to listen to and address all concerns. The engineering to = help drainage/swales would be a benefit to all.= The proposed Clean Solutions septic system would be good for the pond.

PUBLIC INPUT

Attorney Bob Shepard of Smith-Weiss & Shepard (Nashua, NH), representing Roland Perron, Jr. (1 Wood Road Map 30, Lot 11-354) stated that the major objection to the variance was that it didn’t fit, was not within character in keeping with the neighborhood. He said the area variance had to do with the special condition of the property and it was th= eir position that there was no special condition of the property. He stated that there was nothing t= hat made the property special and it was the same as all the other camp lots in= the area; there was nothing unique. He said if the variance was granted, it would then become a unique property be= ing year-round. Attorney Shepard discussed the financial viability. He said it didn’t make sense for someone to invest $200,000 in= to a tiny lot to construct a house. He said it should be a signal that the house didn’t belong on the lot. He said modest expansions could be performed within the Zoning Ordinance.&nbs= p; It was also their position that the applicant didn’t meet the variance requirement, or the other standards and principles. Attorney Shepard spoke of the spir= it and intent of the ordinance, which was to prevent overcrowding on a lot such as= the proposed. He said the other t= hing to be concerned about was the conversion from seasonal to year round use, w= hich would have an impact on Town services.&nbs= p; His client’s property was located behind the applicant’s property and if the proposed building was constructed it would block his client’s view of the water having a detrimental impact on the property value. He reiterated that they opposed granting the variance and asked that the Board deny it.

Ms. Paliy asked on what l= aw Mr. Perron had a right to the view. She asked if the view was deeded. Attorney Shepard didn’t say Mr. Perron had a right to the view, but rather that the view added to the value of the property. He said Mr. Perron currently had a= view and if a structure was built to impede that view, it would diminish the val= ue of the property.    &n= bsp;

Mr. Frank Soars, 83 Webster Avenue, thanked the Board members for walking the site. He also told Mr. Verhofstad that his comments weren’t about him, they were about a place that he had come = to love. He was concerned that abutters had been notified, but there were approximately fifty families that used the property. Legally th= ey were not abutters, but they had rights to use the property and had not been informed regarding the proceedings. Mr. Soars said there was quite a history to the property and were questions how the building was erected to start with; the old Town maps call the property a bog. He commen= ted that there was a spring on the property that he himself had seen. He said the spring carried E.coli.= Mr. Soars stated that he lived at = the pond for the past ten years and had seen its deterioration. He commented that the proposed bui= lding would affect his view. His co= ncern was removing the trees from the property, the quality of the water and the quality of the pond.

Ms. Karen Provencal, 36 Wood Road was concerned about the amount of water the lot contained and the way it acted = as a filter for the Webster Ave= nue lots behind it. She felt once= the lot was graded and leveled the water would flow quicker into the pond with reduced filtration. She state= d that the comment was made that the building would take up 12% of the lot, but was curious to see the percentage if the beach (that they were all deeded to) w= ere excluded. Her concern was for Little Island Pond which was dotted with seasonal cottages. She believed it would be a ‘slippery slope’ if the applicant’s building was not forc= ed to keep the existing footprint. She didn’t understand why the applicant wasn’t being asked/forced to keep the existing footprint when others around the pond had. She felt it would be healthier for= the pond and the neighborhood if the building remained in the same footprint. Ms. Provencal believed it was impo= rtant to keep the growth from happening or to roll it back whenever possible.

Mr. Warren Lafferty, 77 Webster Avenue said a lot of what he wanted to say has already been addressed. He commented that there had alread= y been many trees taken off the property. He questioned what would happen to the roots/stumps that were on the property and wanted to know if they would remain (to decay). He addressed the well and septic a= nd was concerned with adding additional water to the pond. He believed that the land would ne= ed to be raised to install the well and septic, which would in turn raise the hou= se and make the lot higher, so in the end the height would still be 34ft. Mr. Lafferty wanted to know how ma= ny gallons per day the system would be once the trees were removed and the dry well and septic were added.

&n= bsp;

Mr. Andy Kuzmich, 32 Wood Road stated that he found out about the house and plans in the last forty-eight hours.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He was concerned about proposed bu= ilding and didn’t feel it fit the neighborhood. He said that piece of property was enjoyed by the community; there were fifteen families that used the beach annually. He said the buildin= g size and the two car garage didn’t fit the neighborhood. Mr. Kuzmich believed building the proposed structure would be another step to not welcoming (and pushing) the community away from being able to use the beach as they have. He said the property had changed; = the willow being removed and the homes on Webster Avenue exacerbated the problems with the water coming down the hill. He said= there were no gates or fences in the community but the previous owner constructed= a stockade fence making it more difficult for others to use the property. He believed the property struck ev= eryone in the neighborhood because it (the pond/beach) was enjoyed by everyone. He stated that the proposed reside= nce didn’t fit and could ultimately change the community.

Mr. Lafferty told the Boa= rd that there was a culvert in the rear of his property that continued to the applicant’s property (approximately 180Ft+). He stated that most of the water o= n the property was springs. He said= the water was viewed during the site walk and if it had been sitting for a long time it would have been frozen. He commented that the property was spring fed. He asked the Board if they recalled any water sitting on the side street.

Ms. Cynthia Hay, 13 &= 15 Wood Road, came forward to represent four generations of family that had owned seven to ten cottages around Little Island Pond. She said they would love to have someone reside at the property, tak= ing care of it and being a neighbor, but they had all lived within the confines established by the Town and various commissions. They have maintained their homes as seasonal properties with a footprint that fit within the community. Ms. Hay felt the proposed was a li= ttle inappropriate given the layout of the land and the water in the land. She said in reviewing the history,= the proposed may not be a suitable use for the property; and maybe there could = be more of a compromise from the applicant.

Attorney DeCarolis stated= that they tried to point out that they were trying to improve significant draina= ge issues that the neighbors experience in the right-of-way. The water would be exiting on the = lake in a filtered manner, as opposed to the current wash-out manner. The drainage on the property itsel= f was also being addressed. The pro= posal would be a benefit to the community by taking care of some of the drainage problems. Attorney DeCarolis = spoke about the community having the benefit to enjoy the beach that was technica= lly part of the lot. He stated th= ere was an easement on the property and there was no suggestion that any of the rights were being taken away (a previous court order is noted on the plan). With respect to the tr= ees, Attorney DeCarolis stated any trees cut would improve the neighbor’s = view to some degree; they were well outside the Shore Land Protection area. He said the applicant would have t= he right to remove the trees with or without the variance. Attorney DeCarolis told the Board,= in regard to raising the property, that they would agree to a stipulation that= the overall height would not exceed 177ft. above sea level. On the plan the slab grade at 151ft. The character of the neighborhood was addressed; the plan called for a Ca= pe Cod style home traditional colonial-type structure in conformance with the neighborhood.   Attorney DeCarolis stated that there were septic system issues and the proposal was providing a way to solve them. In regard to overcrowding, the Board would have to use their judgment; Attorney DeCarolis felt an argument could be made that the proposed building percent= age was not overcrowding and was in character with the neighborhood.

Mr. Molloy asked if the 1= 2% included the garage. Attorney DeCarolis answered yes.

Mr. Maynard pointed out i= n trying to meet zoning as best as possible, they managed to incorporate the current plan to meet the Town’s current building setbacks.

Mr. Gowan stated that he = could find no direct letter from the Conservation Commission on the property. However, he did locate a letter to= the Department of Environmental Services indicating their support of the applicant. He also provided a= copy of the Conservation Commission’s meeting minutes which captured their discussion and vote. Mr. Moll= oy read aloud the letter from the Conservation Commission to Dr. Frank Richard= son of the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Wetlands Bureau regarding the Dredge and Fill application and Shore Land application.

Mr. Lafferty commented th= at the proposed plan showed a 6ftx30ft dock. It was his understanding that the Town didn’t have jurisdiction over docks. He wanted to know= if the dock could be removed from the plan if it were to be accepted. Mr. Gowan noted only the state wou= ld have jurisdiction over the dock; whether it was on or off the plan, a varia= nce would have no bearing on the dock. <= /span>He clarified that the Board didn’t ‘accept’ plans like the Planning Board; the Board of Adjustment accepted plans only in there releva= nce to the variance. He reiterate= d that the Board of Adjustment had no authority over the dock, or granting a varia= nce for the dock.

Mr. Hennessey wanted it c= larified as to why the applicant could not build on the existing footprint. Attorney DeCarolis stated that the existing footprint would involve an encroachment into the Town’s setb= ack. He noted that the structure was be= ing moved away from the property line so they could comply with the setback requirements. If built in the= same location an additional variance would be needed for the side setback.

Mr. Hennessey said the To= wn didn’t have a variance separating a seasonal dwelling from a year rou= nd dwelling. He said since he ha= d been on the Board they had granted a number of variances (after weighing information), similar to what was being requested by the applicant, in orde= r to protect the pond. He said the= re was testimony that there was a non-conforming septic (located in the wetlands) = that was not working well. He said= in order to have a modern septic system, the Board has usually allowed a more modern structure to be built. Mr. Hennessey stated this case was a bit different; there was testimony as to w= hy the structure couldn’t be built on the existing footprint. In addition there were arguments in front of the Board as to why the building was being brought forward as proposed. He said the applica= tion was received prior to January 1^st (under Boccia criteria) which allowed an economic argument to be made for an area variance. He said he didn’t hear in the argument the cost specifically tied to the building of the two car garage b= eing necessary to recoup the investment money being put in. He stated during the site walk he didn’t see a lot of two car garages in the neighborhood. Mr. Hennessey stated that he would= be voting yes on all the criteria, except on part two of the area variance. He didn’t feel that the appl= icant made a hardship case for the garage.

Ms. Paliy stated in going= through the property she felt the proposed (drainage and septic) would be a great improvement to the lot. Howev= er, she felt the proposed house and garage would be huge for the site. She was having a little bit of a p= roblem with the amount of vegetation being removed versus the small percentage bei= ng put back. Ms. Paliy then addr= essed the abutter’s testimony of enjoying and using the property and how th= ey didn’t want to see it built. She said the property belonged to someone and believed that the applicant had a right to enjoy his property. She agreed that in the past the Bo= ard had allowed a garage and because of that vote, she was having a problem.

Mr. Hennessey believed ea= ch individual case had to be reviewed. He said the building Ms. Paliy referred to did not increase the footprint on the property, which was one of the reasons the Board voted in favor of it. He recalled a va= riance request (on Little Island Pond) when zoning first came into Pelham in which= the Board voted against a garage to be built.&= nbsp; The case went through the court and was ultimately upheld by the New Hampshire Supreme Court; in summary the judgment read that there was no evidence that the lack of a garage would harm the value of a property and on the contrary there was no evidence that the garage was a predominant featur= e of the homes around the lake (which was still true today). Ms. Paliy said the case being refe= rred to currently have a garage that was voted on by the Board.

There was further discuss= ion the request and the Board’s review process of each application that comes before them.

Mr. Kearney felt the appl= ication contained a lot of positive aspects, such as the septic, the site itself, b= oat ramp and the swale. His issue= was with the physical size of the building not fitting with the character of the neighborhood. He thought lowi= ng the height was a great start, but still had difficulty with the structure.

Mr. Ouellette was bothere= d by the height of the structure. He w= as unsure how the structure would affect property values and commented that he wouldn’t want someone to build a house in front of his home (he lived= on a lake). He discussed the num= bers provided regarding the structure’s height and believed the overall he= ight would be back at the 34ft.-35ft. off the slab. He felt the Board needed to pay attention to the height and size.

Attorney DeCarolis asked = if the Board would consider a motion to continue giving the applicant the opportun= ity to consider the neighbor’s concerns and perhaps take a hard look at t= he plans.

MOTION:

(Hennessey/Kearney) To = continue the case to the March 8, 2010 meeting.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

HEARING(S)

Case #2433 RONDEAU, Donald – 40 Longview Circle – Map 6 Lot 4-139-10 – Seekin= g a Variance to Article III, Section 307-12 to permit a shed 2ft. from the left side setback where 15ft. is required.

Mr. O’Sullivan read the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons pre= sent who did not have their name read, or who had difficulty with notification.<= /p>

The applicant, Mr. Donald= Rondeau came forward to discuss the proposed variance. He read aloud the variance criteri= a as submitted (as follows):

The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because: The shed will be concealed on left side of house to protest esthetic value of property.

The spirit of the ordinance is observed because: We are only requesting a variance to the left side set back.

Substantial justice is done because: If we were to put shed elsewhere on property it would be highly visible.

The values of surrounding properties are not diminished because:= The shed will be hidden from view= of street and would not affect the look of neighborhood.

Owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it = from other properties in the area, denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship because:

&n= bsp;

(A)    For purposes of this subparagraph, “unnecessary hardship” means tha= t, owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area:

&n= bsp;

i.      =             &nb= sp; no fair and substantial relationship exists between= the general public purpose of the ordinance provision and the specific applicat= ion of that provision to the property because:= It is located on a side of my property that cannot be accessed by any other property abutters.

ii.      =             &nb= sp; the proposed use is a reasonable one because: It is for storage of lawn and garden equipment and is in a location adjoining = lot cannot gain access.

(B)     If the criteria in subparagraph (A) above are not established, an unnecessary hardship will be deemed to exist if, and only if, owing to special conditio= ns of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area, the property cannot be reasonably used in strict conformance with the ordinance, and a variance is therefore necessary to enable a reasonable use of it. Due to the location of the septic system, and drop off of land, the shed would = be better served on the proposed location of the lot. If forced to build on another loca= tion, it would compromise the esthetics of the property neighboring homes.

Mr. Kearney questioned ho= w far the shed would be from Mr. Rondeau’s neighbor’s home. Mr. Rondeau didn’t have an e= xact measurement and believed it was probably a couple hundred feet. Mr. Kearney asked if anything was located on the property line, such as trees or a fence. Mr. Rondeau said there was a deep = swale making it not usable property. Mr. Kearney questioned if the neighbor would have an eyesore if the shed were placed where proposed. Mr. Ro= ndeau didn’t believe that to be so. He said that neighbor would be the only one that could see it.

Mr. Molloy asked for the = size of the shed. Mr. Rondeau said it= was approximately 13ftx10ft. Mr. = Molloy asked if it would have a wooden floor or be on a concrete slab. Mr. Rondeau said it would be on a concrete slab.

Mr. O’Sullivan conf= irmed how the shed would be accessed and that Mr. Rondeau wouldn’t have to cross onto the neighbor’s property for that access. Mr. Rondeau stated that the shed w= ould be accessible from his property. Mr. O’Sullivan asked if Mr. Rondeau had spoken to his neighbor. Mr. Rondeau said he got along grea= t with his neighbor; there had never been issues.=

Mr. Gowan noted to the Bo= ard that the application for variance came in after January 1, 2010 so it would use new vo= ter slips and there was no longer a distinction between ‘use’ and ‘area’ variances.

Mr. Gowan confirmed with = the applicant that the shed was already in place. Mr. Rondeau answered yes. Mr. Gowan told the Board that the variance would correct an existing situation. He reminded the Board if the shed = were 10ft.x10ft. and less than 12ft. in height it could go right on the property line. He felt this was a case= where the applicant was not aware that a shed needed a building permit.

Mr. Ouellette asked how l= ong the shed had been in place. Mr. R= ondeau said it was put in place in November.

BALLOT VOTE:

Mr. Molloy – Yes = to all criteria

Ms. Paliy – Yes t= o all criteria

Mr. Hennessey – Y= es to all criteria

Mr. O’Sullivan &#= 8211; Yes to all criteria

Mr. Kearney – Yes= to all criteria

VOTE:

(5= -0-0) The motion carried.

VARIANCE GRANTED

DATE SPECIFIED CASE – March 8, 2010:

Case #2429 – FICHER= A, Frank Jr. & CROOKER, Constance – 52 Dutton Road -= Map 36 Lot 10-358 – Seeking an “Area” Variance to Article III, Section 307-12 to permit the subdivision of land to allow two = lots without 200 feet of frontage.

Case #2432 - VERHOFSTAD, Joost – 1 Wood Road - Map 11-333 – Seeking an “Area” Variance to Article II, Sections 307-7, 307-8, 307-12, T= able 1, 307-13 & 307-14 to permit the expansion of a pre-existing non-confor= ming use whereby the existing home shall be razed and a new two-bedroom dwelling with an attached 23ft.x24ft. garage to be constructed in its place on a lot= having approximately 15,900 square feet and 88ft. of frontage on Wood Road

MINUTES

January = 11, 2010

MOTION:

(O’Sullivan/Paliy= ) To approve the Ja= nuary 11, 2010 meeting minutes as written.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

January = 21, 2010 (site walk)

MOTION:

(Hennessey/Kearney) To = approve the January 21= , 2010 meeting minutes as written.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

To adjourn the meeting.=

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 9:10 pm.

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;         Respectfully submitted,

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;         Charity A. Landry Willis

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;         Recording Secretary